The present invention relates to the field of electronic bill payment systems ("bill pay"). A bill pay system allows a consumer or business to direct their bank, an agent of their bank, or a non-bank bill pay service bureau, to pay amounts owed to merchants, service providers and other billers who bill consumers or businesses for amounts owed, and allows a consumer or business to receive electronic invoices.
Millions of consumers make payments to utilities, merchants and service providers ("billers") by check, with a small number of consumers using non-check means for paying billers. The term "consumer" as used herein broadly refers to any person or entity paying a bill, be it a utility customer, a taxpayer paying a tax, a borrower repaying a loan, etc., which could be a person, governmental or business entity. Consumers are differentiated from "customers" herein because that term could potentially refer to many parties to a bill pay system, in that the biller is a customer of its bank (the "biller bank"), the consumer is a customer of its bank (the "consumer bank"), and consumer might be a customer of a non-bank bill pay service bureau. The consumer is also usually a customer of the biller. To avoid confusion, the bill paying entity is referred to as the "consumer" and the biller' is the entity which is to be paid.
Billers, who often are billing small amounts with each transaction, must incur the costs of processing many checks, including the attendant overhead of dealing with remittance processing, such as opening envelopes, data capture of the consumer's account number, MICR (Magnetic Ink Character Recognition) encoding of the check amounts, etc. To ensure that the cost of processing an item is small, billers have set up huge operations for remittance processing, often out-sourcing the work to "lockbox" operations which process and deposit the payments for the biller, supplying the biller with captured consumer data and MICR encoded checks for deposit. The payment coupons which a biller requests to be returned with the consumer's check are often preprinted with scanlines comprising lines of data (account number, amount due, etc.) which can be electronically captured due to the design and placement of the scanlines on the coupon. For example, the necessary information may be provided on the coupon in a bar code, or other mechanically or electronically readable form. Because of this, coupons play a key role in today's remittance processing systems.
Given the economies of scale, a biller has great incentive to reduce the cost of remittance processing and, more significantly, the biller has an even larger incentive to reduce the cost of "exception items." An exception item is a payment which, for some reason, cannot be processed according to the highly automated and/or standardized procedures put in place by the biller to quickly process remittances. Exception items include checks received without payment coupons, payment coupons received without checks, checks for amounts different than the amounts shown on the corresponding coupons, multiple payment coupons received in an envelope with a single check. The cost to process a typical payment transaction is $0.09 to $0.18 per transaction for a high-volume, efficient remittance processing operation, while an exception item transaction might cost as much as $0.65 to $1.50.
Curiously, when a consumer decides to try an alternate form of remittance such as using a bill pay service bureau, either a bank or non-bank service bureau, the cost to the biller increases dramatically, because such a remittance is typically an exception item to most billers today. A bill pay service bureau provides a bill pay service to the consumer whereby the consumer directs the service bureau to make payments to the biller. Since the payment origination is usually done electronically, the remittance is not presented to the biller in the usual way, which is just a check and a payment coupon, in the biller-provided envelope. Instead, the biller usually receives a check printed by the service bureau drawn on the consumer's bank account and showing the consumer's account number with the biller and MICR data encoding the consumer's bank account number. In some cases, the service bureau obtains the funds from the consumer, and then presents the biller with a check drawn on the service bureau's account with instructions to credit the amount of the check to the consumer's account with the biller. In other cases, the payment is an electronic transfer where the consumer's account information is included with the transfer or provided in a list of payments from multiple consumers provided by the service bureau to the biller.
In any case, these transactions are exception items to the biller, since no payment coupon is presented, and thus entail additional costs to billers. Unfortunately for the billers, electronic payments and the use of service bureaus will increase in popularity, causing the percentage of exception items to increase, unless a "non-exception" mechanism for efficiently handling electronic payments without payment coupons is used. The costs to the consumer's bank, if it is not the bill pay service provider, or if it is not in cooperation with the service bureau, increase also, since it must modify its check presentment and clearing process to accommodate these unusual transactions which are being forced upon the bank.
With large bill pay service bureaus, which may have many customers of their service paying bills to the same biller, that biller will often receive one check for many customers accompanied by a list of account numbers and amounts for the consumers whose remittances are part of the single check. The biller then must go through the list manually to verify that the account numbers are correct, and then capture the data to their accounting systems. Thus, if more and more consumers start using this alternative payment means, the percentage of remittances which are exceptions will go up, raising the average cost per transaction.
Many proposed bill pay systems are designed with little or no consideration of the costs to parties other than the consumer and the bill pay system operator. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,220,501, issued to Lawlor, et al., describes in detail a bill pay system in which the bill pay system operator captures consumer payment directives using a telephone with a small text display. These consumer payment directives are sent to a central computer operated by the system, which then uses an ATM network to obtain funds in the amount of the payment from the consumer's ATM-accessible bank account. Once the funds are obtained into an account of the system operator, the system determines how to pay the biller, either by wire transfer, debit network using the biller's bank account number, or by check and list. While the Lawlor et al. system is presented as being very beneficial to the system operator (i.e., the service provider of bill pay services to the consumer), it has less than desirable effects on the consumers, the consumers' banks, and the billers.
With the Lawlor et al system, consumers run the risk of loss if the system operator were to go out of business between the time a withdrawal is made and the payment is made to the biller. The consumers also cannot pay a bill to a one-time vendor easily, since the system is only set up to pay billers which the consumer has previously identified days or weeks before a payment to a biller is ordered. There are two reasons for this. First, the Lawlor et al. device for consumer data entry is geared to users who require simple devices and because a keyboard for entry of biller data to enroll a biller would be too complicated. Instead, the consumers submit forms to the system operator identifying the biller, probably by name and address. This identification is inexact, because the system operator might identify the wrong biller, and billers might operate under similar names with similar addresses.
Billers dislike systems such as Lawlor's because each transaction through the system is an exception item to the billers, and if a service bureau makes a mistake, the biller will often find itself fielding the call from consumers when they call to complain about misapplied payments. Billers could try to add a service charge to cover the added expense, in much the same way that mail-order companies charge less for prepayment and retail outlets charge less for using cash, but the problem is that the billers do not know which remittances will come in normally and which remittances will come in via a bill pay service. What is needed is a simple means of shifting the costs of the exception items to the consumers, or lowering the costs of the transactions. That way, if the consumer insists on being an exception item, the biller can recover their costs, and the interests of both the consumer and biller are served.
Several other solutions to the high cost of exception items have been proposed, such as billers getting pre-authorization from consumers to submit debit requests to consumer's bank, or a service which specializes in processing exception items into a form processable by the biller's automated remittance processing system or lockbox. These, however, have not been satisfactory solutions. The former solution provides very little control by the consumer over the withdrawal of funds from its bank account and is only really useful for recurring payments from a particular consumer to a particular biller, while the latter adds an additional cost (albeit usually less than the exception processing costs) over and above the normal remittance processing cost. In some cases, for small recurring payments, the only way a biller's goods or services is offered to a consumer is through pre-authorized debits.
Several bill pay or remittance processing systems proposed in the prior art are described below, but first some background on bill pay is provided. For brevity and clarity, the consumer's account with the biller is referred to herein as the C-B ("consumer-biller") account, thereby distinguishing that account from other accounts: the consumer's account with its bank, the biller's account with its bank, etc. In most cases, the biller uses the C-B account number to uniquely identify the consumer in its records.
Bill pay transactions, however accomplished, have several common elements, which are either explicit or can be implied by the nature of the transaction. The first is presentment: a biller presents the consumer with a bill showing the C-B account number and an amount due. The second common element is payment authorization: the consumer performs some act (e.g., signs a check or other negotiable instrument) which authorizes the consumer's bank to transfer funds from the consumer's account to the biller; this element might occur after presentment or before (as in the case of pre-authorized withdrawals), and need not be explicit (delivery of a check is implicit authorization for the amount of the check). This element is almost always accompanied by some action by the consumer bank to ensure payment to it from the consumer, such as withdrawing the funds from consumer's bank account, posting the amount to the consumer's credit card account or line of credit, etc. The third common element is confirmation to the consumer of the funds withdrawal. The fourth common element is the crediting of the payment to the C-B account. In some cases, the biller acknowledges the crediting with nothing more than refraining from sending a past due bill.
FIGS. 1-3 show block diagrams of existing bill pay systems which implement these four common elements in different ways. In those block diagrams, the participants are shown in ovals, and the flow of material is shown by numbered arrows roughly indicating the chronological order in which the flows normally occur. The arrows embody a link, which is a physical link for paper flow, a data communications channel from one point to another, or other means for transferring material. Where several alternatives exist for a flow, the alternatives might be shown with a common number and a letter appended thereto, such as "2" and "2A". "Material" refers to documents and/or information, whether paper-based ("postal mail"), electronic (e-mail, messages, packets, etc.), or other transfer medium. In most cases, the material which is flowing is shown near the arrow which links the material's source and destination.
FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a conventional paper bill pay system 10, wherein billers send paper bills or coupon books to consumers and consumers return paper checks and payment coupons. Because the majority of today's bill pay transactions occur this way, the proof and capture process for these remittances is highly automated, except for the aptly-named "exception items."
In bill pay system 10, the participants are a consumer C (12), a biller B (14), consumer C's bank (Bank C) 16, biller B's bank (Bank B) 18 and, optionally, a lockbox operator 20. Bank C maintains consumer C's bank account 22 and a clearing account 24, while Bank B maintains biller B's bank account 26 and a clearing account 28. The material passing between the participants includes a bill 30, a remittance 32 comprising a check 34 and a payment coupon 36, an account statement 38, an accounts receivable ("A/R") data file 40, an encoded check, which is check 34 with MICR encoding, and possibly a non-sufficient funds ("NSF") notice 46.
The flow of material between participants in bill pay system 10 begins (arrow 1) when biller B sends bill 30 through the postal mails to consumer C. Bill 30 indicates a C-B account number and an amount due, and is typically divided into an invoice portion to be retained by consumer C and a payment coupon portion to be returned, each of which shows the C-B account number and amount due.
In response to receiving bill 30, consumer C sends remittance 32 to biller B (arrow 2). Remittance 32 contains check 34 drawn on consumer C's account 22 at Bank C and payment coupon 36, preferably included in the return envelope provided by biller B. Biller B then MICR encodes the amount of the remittance onto check 34 to create encoded check 44, and deposits check 44 (arrow 3), and credits consumer C's account in biller B's customer general ledger ("G/L") account database 42. Alternately, remittance 32 is mailed to lockbox operator 20 (arrow 2A), which opens remittance 32, MICR encodes check 34 to create encoded check 44, captures the C-B account number and amount of the check electronically to create A/R data file 40. Lockbox operator 20 then sends A/R data file 40 to biller B, and sends encoded check 44 to Bank B to be credited to biller B's account 26 (arrow 3A). Because check 44 is signed by consumer C, it authorizes Bank C to pass the amount of the check to Bank B after Bank B presents the check to Bank C. The signed check serves as the second common element of a bill pay transaction: authorization.
However encoded check 44 reaches Bank B, Bank B then presents check 44 to Bank C, along with other checks received by Bank B which were drawn on Bank C accounts (arrow 4). When Bank C receives check 44, it withdraws the amount of the check from C's account 22 and passes the funds to B's account at Bank B (arrow 5). Actually, this funds transfer occurs from C's account 22 to clearing account 24, to clearing account 28, and then to B's account 26, possibly with one or more intermediate settlement banks in the chain (omitted for clarity).
If the funds are not available in C's account 22 to cover the amount of check 44 or if C's account 22 has been closed, then Bank C will return the check to Bank B, who will in turn return the check to biller B. Biller B will then have to reverse the transaction crediting consumer C's C-B account in G/L database 42 and renegotiate payment from consumer C, all at significant cost to biller B. Even if check 44 clears, the process of providing good funds to biller B is not instantaneous, since check 44 must physically travel from biller B to Bank B to Bank C. Of course, if biller B has sufficient credit rating with Bank B, Bank B could move the funds from clearing account 28 to B's account 26 when Bank B receives check 44.
At some time following the clearing of check 44, biller B also updates its A/R records in G/L database 42 to credit consumer C's C-B account, and Bank C confirms to consumer C the withdrawal of the amount of check 44 by listing it on statement 38 and/or by the return of canceled check 44. If the check doesn't clear, then biller B and other parties to the transaction unwind the payment.
One benefit of bill pay system 10 is that, for nearly all billers, there is no need for biller enrollment (any consumer can pay a biller without prior arrangements or a waiting period). However, many drawbacks of bill pay system 10 are apparent. Consumer C must individually address, mail and track payments to individual billers such as biller B. Bill pay system 10 must reach arrow 5 before funds availability is confirmed. If the funds cannot be confirmed, the progress of the transaction must be reversed, with costs to Bank C, Bank B and biller B. In such a system, consumer C does not have control over when the funds are transferred, because the transfer timing depends on when biller B receives and processes remittance 32 and when Bank B receives check 44 from biller B.
A variation on the above system is the GIRO systems used in several countries in Northern Europe. The GIRO systems were set up there either by the government or the postal system, which is a traditional supplier of financial services. In a GIRO system, it is mandated that each bill payer and each bill payee be assigned a GIRO number. The biller sends bills with its biller GIRO number on the payment coupons. The layout, shape, etc. of the GIRO payment coupons is also mandated, so a consumer will receive similar coupons with each bill. After reviewing the bill, the consumer simply adds their GIRO number to the payment coupon and signs it. Thus, the payment coupon also serves as a banking instrument similar to a check.
The consumers in a GIRO system are comfortable with it because the payment coupons all look the same. The consumer then mails the payment coupons to either a GIRO central processor or its own bank, which then sorts them by biller GIRO number and submits them to the biller. Since the payment coupons are all in a fixed format, they can be easily encoded in a machine readable format, including the payment amount, which the biller pre-prints onto the coupon. If the consumer gives their GIRO number to the biller, the biller can also pre-print that number on the payment coupon as well. Since all the coupons look the same, the banks can process them like a check and achieve economies of scale.
While a GIRO system might be a partial solution to efficient remittance processing, it does not go far enough. Furthermore, in the U.S., it is not suitable, since there are many more billers in the U.S. to coordinate compared with the relatively few billers in Northern Europe which would need to be coordinated. Coordination of billers and getting them all to standardize on a fixed format for bills, even for a few billers is easier in those countries, since the governments there typically take a more active role in payment systems. Also, consumers in the U.S. are less likely to need such a system, because checking accounts are more readily available to consumers in the U.S.
As for the billers, they still have the problems of bill pay system 10, albeit with less of a problem with missing checks or coupons, because the check is the coupon. The biller still must contend with the paper shuffling, checks that do not clear, etc. Also, because the system is funded by float on the funds, there is less of a concern among the parties involved in bill pay to try and balance their costs with other parties. In the U.S., however, one day's float may be an unacceptable cost to the participants in the bill pay system, and it does not allow for competitive rates. A consumer's bank or a biller's bank has no incentive to be more efficient so that it can charge less than another bank and thus compete for a larger market share, since banks do not charge for the GIRO services and have no power to reduce the costs to the participants, nor shift them to the best cost absorber.
FIG. 2 is a block diagram of an alternate bill pay system 50, which reduces the effort required on the part of consumer C relative to bill pay system 10, but which increases costs for billers. The difference between bill pay system 50 and bill pay system 10 is that consumer C initiates payment electronically (or by other non-check means).
Bill pay system 50 includes most of the same participants as bill pay system 10: consumer C, Bank C, Bank B, possibly a lockbox operator (not shown in FIG. 2), and biller B, who is typically not a proactive or willing participant in this system. Additionally, a service bureau S (52) and a Bank S (53) are participants, with service bureau S maintaining a service database 54 which is used to match bill payment orders with billers. The material passing among the participants includes bill 30, as in the prior example, as well as a bill payment order 56 and related confirmation of receipt 66 (both typically transmitted electronically), an enrollment package 57, a biller confirmation 58, a bill payment 60 ("check and list") which includes check 62.
In bill pay system 50, consumer C typically enrolls in bill pay system 50 by sending service bureau S (arrow 1) enrollment package 57 comprising a voided check and list of billers to be paid by S on behalf of C. S subsequently sends biller B biller confirmation 58 (arrow 2) to verify (arrow 3) that C is indeed a customer of B and/or that biller B is a valid biller and/or to confirm/elicit accurate payment routing information. The fundamental features common to all bill pay enrollment processes involve consumer C identifying the billers to be paid by S, the consumer C's C-B account number(s) with each biller to be paid, and the funding account(s) at bank(s) C to be used to fund payments.
With bill pay system 10 (FIG. 1), consumer C identifies the proper biller by the remittance envelope and the payment coupon, neither of which is available to service bureau S in bill pay system 50. Thus, service bureau S must identify the correct biller for each bill payment order some other way. Typically, service bureau S does this by asking consumer C for biller B's name, address, telephone number and consumer C's account number with biller B ("C-B account number"). Since neither Bank C nor service bureau S may have any account relationship with biller B, they must rely upon consumer C's accuracy in preparing enrollment package 57 which is used to put biller B's information into service database 54. Service bureau S typically requires this information only once, during biller enrollment, storing it to service database 54 for use with subsequent payments directed to the same billers. Of course, if this information changes, service database 54 would be out of date. If this information is wrong to start with, or becomes wrong after a change, service bureau S might send funds to the wrong entity, to the wrong location at the correct entity, or to the wrong C-B account at the correct biller entity. What a service bureau will often do to reduce errors in biller identification is to not allow the consumer to make payments to a biller for a specified time period after enrolling the biller, to allow service bureau S to verify biller B and the C-B account mask with biller B in a biller confirmation message 58.
Sometime later, consumer C receives bill 30 (arrow 4) and initiates bill payment order 56 (arrow 5). Bill payment order 56 includes authorization for service bureau S to withdraw funds from C's account 22 to pay bill 30, the amount to pay (not necessarily the amount due on bill 30), the date on which to pay, and some indication of biller B as the payee. Service bureau S responds with confirmation of receipt 66 indicating that bill pay order 56 was received (arrow 6). Consumer C can send bill pay order 56 in any number of ways, such as using a personal computer and modem, directly or through a packet of other data network, via an automatic teller machine (ATM), video touch screen, a screen phone, or telephone Touch-Tone.TM. pad (TTP) interacting with a voice response unit (VRU). However this is done, service bureau S receives one or more bill pay orders from consumer C. These orders could be instructions to pay some amount for a bill or a set amount of money at periodic intervals.
Assuming that service bureau S has correctly identified and confirmed that biller B is a biller which consumer C desired to pay with bill pay order 56, then service bureau S passes the funds to biller B as biller payment 60 (arrow 12) after securing funds to cover the remittance. Bill payment can take several forms as discussed below. In FIG. 2 a "check and list" is depicted, which is common in the art. A check and list comprises a single payment, check 62 drawn on service bureau S's account 70, accompanied by a list of all consumers whose individual remittances are aggregated in the single check. The list shows C-B account numbers and payment amounts for each consumer included on the list which should total to the amount of the single check 62. This process brings some economies of scale to service bureau S, although at additional expense to biller B. In some cases, rather than endure the expense of checking over the list to ensure it matches the check amount, biller B will refuse to accept that form of payment.
To secure funds, service bureau S either prints a check (check 44) drawn on C's account to biller B (arrow 7) or debits C's account at Bank C using an ACH debit (arrow 10) and then sends payment 60 to biller B (arrow 12). Either way, biller B must treat payment 60 as an exception item, since check presentment is done without including the payment coupons, and in the case of check and list, posting to G/L database 42 is done from the list instead of from payment coupons as in bill pay system 10. Biller B deposits check 62 with Bank B (arrow 13) who clears it through Bank S and a settlement account 71 (arrow 145) (if the check is drawn on S's account) or (arrow 20) through Bank C (for example, if check 44 drawn on C's account) to obtain good funds for B's account 26 (arrows 14-17). The cycle is completed (arrow 18) when consumer C receives notice that funds were withdrawn from C's account 22, either through check 44 or through ACH debit (arrow 10), for the amount entered in bill pay order 56.
If the bill pay transaction goes through, Bank C will confirm that it went through by sending a confirmation (typically statement 38) to consumer C. However, the transaction might have to be sent back for a number of reasons. If the service bureau S cannot identify biller B from information provided by consumer C, it will reverse the transaction. If biller B is misidentified, or the C-B account number provided by service bureau S is not valid, the transaction will be reversed after arrow 12, at considerable confusion to consumer C and service bureau S, and cost to biller B. In some cases, biller B will not make the effort to reverse the transaction, instead holding onto the funds until consumer C asks for them back. Furthermore, if the funds are not good, additional costs are imposed on biller B, and the possibility exists that consumer C will lose money if the funds pass through service bureau S, and S subsequently goes out of business before transferring the funds to biller B.
Bill pay system 50 has further drawbacks. For example, authorization for withdrawals from C's account 22 are made by C either at time of payment or in advance, for future payments. To allow time for service bureau S to process requests, they will often require a window of several days in which they agree to process the payment. Because of this, consumer C is asked to leave good funds in account 22 for the duration of this period.
Another problem with bill pay system 50 is that service bureau S must figure out which payment method to use with which billers. The check and list approach might not be workable with biller B, either because biller B refuses to be burdened with it or for other reasons. The bill payment process just described is essentially a series of bilateral agreements between a party and usually, although not always, the next party in the payment process, with no agreements from end to end, so there is no guarantee that any arrangement between two parties such as service bureau S and biller B will be effective at reliably and inexpensively transferring funds from the consumer to the biller. For example, consumer C might have an agreement with service bureau S, but service bureau S and Bank C might still be strangers to each other. Service bureau S and Bank C are generally always strangers to biller B, which is why there needs to be so many different paths to biller B.
Consumer C in bill pay system 50 must also contend with one confirmation from service bureau S that payment was sent, a different confirmation from Bank C indicating that the transaction was completed, and possibly a third confirmation from biller B confirming that biller B credited consumer C's account in G/L database 42. Consumer C is also less in control of account 22. Since service bureau S maintains only the payment information and recurring payment information and Bank C does not have that information, consumer C cannot look to one entity to provide a complete statement of the status of the account which was the source of the funds, since service bureau S has some of the information and Bank C has the rest.
Several variations of the system shown in FIG. 2 are used today. In one variation, S sends an individual check 44 (unsigned-signature on file) drawn on C's account 22 to biller B in response to bill pay order 56. This clears as in bill pay system 10 (FIG. 1, arrows 3-7), but B must process these one at a time, since they are exception items. This reduces the possibility that B will refuse to process check 44, since it only differs from the expected payment form by lacking a coupon. Thus, biller B is less likely to refuse this form of payment over a check and list, and the biller is less likely to have problems of the list not balancing or having bad account numbers.
In a second variation, instead of a check from Bank C cleared through Bank S to credit S's account 70, S has Bank S submit a debit to C's account 22 through the Automated Clearing House ("ACH") (see FIG. 3 and accompanying text). In a third variation, in place of arrows 12-17, ("check and list"), S may send A/R data and a credit to biller B through one path of: i) Bank S to ACH to Bank B to biller B or ii) MasterCard's RPS (Remittance Processing System) to Bank B to biller B. As used here, the RPS is merely an alternative to the ACH. Alternatively, S may send the A/R data via a separate electronic data interchange to biller B and forward the payment amount via the ACH or RPS mechanisms. In a fourth variation, a combination of the second and third variations, S sends simultaneous ACH transactions (debit account 22 and credit account 26).
FIG. 3 is a block diagram of yet another bill pay system 80, which is usually used with billers who expect regular, periodic payments. Relative to the previously discussed bill payment systems, billers generally prefer bill pay system 80 when they are set up to handle such transactions.
Bill pay system 80, while providing more efficient remittance processing by biller B due to its increased control over the process, leaves consumer C with very little control over the bill pay transactions after the relationship is set up, since consumer C is typically required to give biller B an open ended authorization to withdraw funds. Furthermore, bill pay system 80 is not appropriate for all types of billers, such as those who do not have an on-going and predictable relationship with consumers.
FIG. 3 introduces several new items which flow among the participants including ACH 81, such as a voided check 84, a debit advice 86, a pre-authorization message 88, and a debit request message 90. In bill pay system 80, biller B is required to maintain an additional customer database 82.
For bill pay system 80 to work properly, there is an enrollment phase (arrows 1-4) and an operational phase (arrows 5-13). In the enrollment phase, consumer C gives biller B voided check 84, which biller B uses to initiate pre-authorization message 88. Biller B is not allowed by ACH 81 to directly submit pre-authorization message 88, which means Bank B, an ACH Originating Depository Financial Institution (ODFI), must get involved and submit message 88 to Bank C, an ACH Receiving Depository Financial Institution (RDFI). After pre-authorization message 88 is accepted by Bank C, Bank C will accept Bank B initiated automatic debits to be posted to C's account 22. In the operational phase, biller B queries customer database 82 to determine if consumer C is enrolled as an automatic debitor. If so, biller B optionally sends debit advice 86 to consumer C, and sends debit request message 90 to biller B's bank, Bank B, which then sends it through the ACH 81 to Bank C, which debits C's account 22 and transfers the funds to biller B's account 26 via the ACH. The transaction is confirmed to consumer C on bank statement 38 sent to consumer C from Bank C. In this system 80, debit request message 90 might be rejected by Bank C for, among other reasons, non-sufficient funds, resulting in the flows along arrows 10-12.
Bill pay system 80 suffers from a lack of consumer control. Even if biller B fails to send debit advice 86 to consumer C, or initiates a debit request 90 for a different amount than contained in debit advice 86, it is up to C to unwind the transaction and bear the consequences of biller B's error(s). C's account 22 will get debited, and C has little or no control over the transaction date. Furthermore, if C has a dispute with biller B, it may be very difficult, short of closing account 22, to prevent biller B from taking a disputed amount from C's account 22.
While some billers may prefer bill pay system 80 over bill pay system 50 (FIG. 2), it nonetheless entails costs that exceed highly automated bill pay system 10 (FIG. 1), because biller B must enroll each of its customers using the system and maintain a separate customer database 82 for authorizations, debit amounts and debit period. This system also requires an extended enrollment period.
Enrollment is not really necessary in bill pay system 10 (FIG. 1), but is very much an issue in bill pay system 50 (FIG. 2) and bill pay system 80 (FIG. 3). In bill pay system 50, each consumer must undergo an enrollment process with their bill pay service provider. For a consumer to enroll, they must supply the bill pay service provider with a canceled check, which is used to set up the authorization to withdraw funds from account 22. Because the consumer is enrolled using a specific account, the consumer cannot easily change that account, much less direct that payments be covered by funds in various accounts for various payments. Instead, the consumer needs to keep the enrolled account open and must separately move the funds to cover bills to that account.
With bill pay system 50, the bill pay service provider must also enroll each biller to which a consumer requests payment if that biller has not already been enrolled by that service provider. To enroll a biller, a service provider must identify the means of payment for the biller, where the biller is located for mailing checks, etc.
With bill pay system 80, a consumer must enroll each biller separately, usually by sending a voided check to each, and the biller must enroll each consumer individually as well. In either system 50 or system 80, a consumer must wait several days or weeks until the consumer and the consumer's billers are fully enrolled.
Yet another disadvantage of conventional bill pay systems in which a biller has no control over the payment process, is that a biller may wish to reject a transaction for a number of reasons, such as that the transaction does not contain data required by the biller for proper processing or that the biller does not want to receive payments from a given customer.
None of the above-described bill pay systems can accommodate electronic invoice presentments. Most regular bills paid by consumers are bills presented by billers which are under regulatory control, either by utility regulators, bank regulators, or the like.
The above shortcomings demonstrate that an improved means of paying bills is needed.